Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adolf Hitler/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adolf Hitler

[edit]

This article is a carefully balanced, detailed and objective treatment of a controversial and oddly polarizing topic which continues to be the source of both misleading caricature and seemingly endless popular fascination (and as such, one of the most vandalized entries in Wikipedia). Support. Wyss 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was planning to nominate this until Wyss did the job. I fully support the nomination since I learnt a quite a few things and the article is pretty well balanced and concise. Though there might be issues of vandalism especially after putting it in the main page I think this article should be made featured article after locking it maybe? And please vote for the article NOT the person. Thanx.--Idleguy 03:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Note, Hitler willed most of his personal property (including the copyright to MK) to the German government shortly before he killed himself, so the Mein Kampf comparison to photo copyright issues is likely not relevant. Wyss 02:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the photos were taken from the National Archives, so I am not sure what copyright status they fell under. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the photographer died over 70 years ago (1934 or earlier), then the image is considered public domain in Germany; all others are copyrighted. For images with the copyright held by the Nazi government, the copyright was passed to the Federal Republic, which transfered all previous Nazi-era copyright to Transit-Film Gesellschaft in 1963. (Trasit is a company fully owned by the current German government.) Transit still vigorously claims copyright on many WWII-era images created by the Third Reich, and the U.S respects copyrights that the German government claims are valid, so long as the photos were taken after 1922. The UK declared that Nazi-copyrighted material was public domain under the Enemy Property Act of 1953, but the United States never claimed this. Since Wikipedia servers are based in the U.S, we have to follow U.S. law. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Can we ask Congress to sign on to it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since even Britain repealed the act in the 70's, it seems unlikely to work. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting, but just the sight of him still makes too many people's blood boil, and this could be a bad influence. Codex Sinaiticus 04:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not actionable. From above, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". Please point out specific things in the article that can be fixed/improved. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would tend to agree with Spangineer on this one. Your objection is not actionable — it does not give the editor any pointers on how the article could be improved. Being featured does not necessarily mean it will appear on the front page, it means that we feel the article is of exemplary quality. slambo 15:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • This vote is not only actionable, it is despisable POV! Featured articles are not determined as such on whether the subject matter makes people "cheery" or otherwise. This is currently an invalid opposition. --Oldak Quill 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't feel bad, Codex. A lot of people think that. But the rules are that only actionable objections can be made. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This article looks great, but the lead seems very weak to me, especially the last paragraph. Maybe it could be expanded a bit to more greatly emphasize Hitler's influence on 20th century history? It seems a bit.. bland. Other than that, I have no objection at all. --malathion talk 19:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, controversial :) In my personal experience, AH is a lose/lose topic in terms of consensus. If for some reason no consensus to feature it emerges, I still think the article is a real credit to Wikipedia. I find the copyright objections to the photos interesting, but more related to AH's contorted (and still volatile) legacy in Germany than to any serious copyright issues. Wyss 00:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, informative and comprehensive. Phoenix2 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, like the lead the legacy section lets down the rest of the article, it's a collection of unrealted underdeveloped points. They should both be improved.--nixie 04:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and hope this article can survive the vandalism to keep its current qualilty. I'd probably advise that if the FAC is successful, someone (ie. Wyss) make a note of the version when the FA passes so that it can be reverted to it vandalism and POV gets bad. Harro5 04:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just from looking at the introduction, there are already major mistakes in this article. The first sentence is wrong "Adolf Hitler was the Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death". He was only Chancellor in 1933, and wasn't Führer until 1934. Also, it says "The racial policies that Hitler directed"-this is wrong, Hitler did not personally direct racial policy, he endorsed the racial policy proposals of his subordinates. Although much of the inspiration for racial policy came from Hitler's personality/books/speeches, he did not actually direct racial policy. I recommend this article be sent to peer review, and the authors of this article read Ian Kershaw's "The Nazi Dictatorship", which deals with Hitler's power and the extent to which he directed policy. There are also generalisations, for example in the Repression section "Thousands disappeared into concentration camps. Many thousands more emigrated, including about half of Germany's Jews." With the extensive references this article has I wouldn't expect such vagueness-no attempt to use specific figures, no distinction between how political enemies, social enemies (what the Nazis called "asocials") and Jews were treated, no distinction between "concentration camps" and extermination camps. It same paragraph also says "the SA, SS and Gestapo (secret state police) were given a 'free hand' "-hardly encyclopaedic language.Deus Ex 17:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these objections revolve around interpretations that are still way controversial. AH did personally direct racial policy in Germany, although semantics and language differences can influence descriptions of how the underlying administration and bureaucracy implemented his leadership. I'm comfortable with both interpretations (I see them as mostly semantic). Although I didn't write it, and agree that the term free hand is a bit fast and loose, it's apt enough if the context is understood. In the past I've personally removed the Fuhrer title from the opening paragraph but it keeps re-appearing. Wyss 23:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, " AH did personally direct racial policy in Germany" goes against everything that Ian Kershaw says about Hitler in his books, and I don't really understand then why Kershaw's biography is listed as a reference if his arguments are ignored. This article fails as NPOV as it shows one side the of the argument-what is known in Nazi Germany historiography as the "strong dictator" argument. The "weak dictator" school and Ian Kershaw's view, what he calls a "synthesis" of the two should be considered too. From what I've read in "The Nazi Dictatorship" (written by Kershaw), Hitler did not personally direct racial policy. In fact there is no record of any racial policy initiated by Hitler-they were all initiated and drawn up by his subordinates and confirmed by him, but they were very much inspired by Hitler's anti-Semitism. And Kershaw is considered today one of the world's leading historians of Nazi Germany.
The Repression paragraph is inadequate and needs revision. Apart from what I've already said, "They were also subject to a barrage of hate propaganda" is questionable, it would be more accurate to say "the German public were subject to a campaign of anti-Semitic propaganda". The treatment of anti-Semitism is too vague-it should mention that the Kristallnacht was a turning point, in that it was the first major act of state approved violence against Jews (previously state persecution had been through the law). Some other things the article doesn't mention are his personal life, e.g. his relationship with Eva Braun, the fact he had a very short "working week" (he only worked a few hours a day-I can find the specific figures)-so he was often unreachable by officials. The legacy section is poorly organised, and there is no section on historiography-i.e. the "master/weak dictator" argument, which you must have come across from the references, especially Kershaw. Deus Ex 00:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you've begun making edits to the article... I was going to suggest that. I've already replied to the endorsed/directed question. As to his working hours, they seem to have been not overly long, but varied somewhat. He rose late, sometimes in the mid afternoon, and didn't sleep until the crack of dawn. The article is already very long, which is why topics such as Braun and his suicide are discussed in separate articles. Wyss 01:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry but I don't find your reply to the endorsed/directed question adequate. "Hitler directed racial policies" is not a fact, it is an interpretation, but in this article it is presented as a fact. It would better to say "racial policies in Nazi Germany", which does not make reference to Hitler specifically, because the extent to which Hitler actually directed racial policy is disputed by historians, and many modern historians would accept Kershaw's position that he was "a dictator without having to dicate".Deus Ex 09:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They burned a lot of papers in April 1945. Recently declassified Sov docs indicate that while in custody after the war, Gunsche and Linge said AH "pored over" blueprints for the first gas chambers (that's in the article now). I agree with Kershaw nonetheless, that AH (at first) was so skillful in both selecting his key aides and assoiates, along with motivating them, that specific orders were often unnecessary. However he was capable of active management, especially regarding things that keenly interested him, was even criticized for it from time to time and serious historians do disagree on the directed/endorsed issue. Since he was fuhrer, with absolute power which he could target rather much as he pleased, I think directed/endorsed is an interesting discussion but hardly a distinction capable of deflecting historic responsibility. I'm ok with the term "enabled" btw but other editors have consistently changed that to "directed". The preponderance of evidence does continue to tilt towards his having given direct, detailed orders on this one. It should also be noted that the last line in his political will, dictated to Traudl Junge hours before he killed himslef, exhorted the world, in effect, to keep exterminating jews. Wyss 18:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I think "enabled" is more appropriate given the debate amongst historians. I just read through part of the article and compared to the Britannica entry, and I've got a few questions. 1. What source is the info about Hitler's indoctrination in his early life? There is no mention of it in the Brittannica entry, and if it is speculative or not completely substantiated, then I think it should be cut back to just the reliable facts. The Brittanica entry just says "Hitler already showed traits that characterized his later life: loneliness and secretiveness, a bohemian mode of everyday existence, and hatred of cosmopolitanismand of the multinational character of Vienna." 2. "he immediately enlisted in the Bavarian army"-was there actually a "Bavarian army", Brittanica says "volunteered for the German army" 3. "Hitler's street-corner oratory, attacking Jews, socialists and liberals, capitalists and Communists"-not a very good sentence. The article needs to explain (briefly) why these groups might be distrusted. It also needs to make explicit Hitler's opposition to the (unpopular) Weimar 4. Need to mention 1930 alliance with the Nationalist leader Alfred Hugenberg and importance (Hitler got coverage in Hugenberg's newspaper, able to reach a national audience). According to Brittannica, this alliance also helped Hitler to gain finance from industrialists and business magnates. 5. "Given this, claims that the German economy achieved near full employment are at least partly artifacts of propaganda from the era." I'm not sure about this. Between 1933-39, unemployment dropped from about 5.6m (depends on whether official figures/estimates) to about 50,000 in 1939-so low foreign workers had to be used. I'm not sure about the War years, but in 1939, unemployment was certainly extremely low.Deus Ex 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm now opposing this because Wyss, the originator of the nomination, is citing constructive improvements of the article as Vandalism.
The above vote is unsigned. Its cited reason is a complaint about my behavior, not the article content, so I don't think it should count. Wyss 23:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Adolf_Hitler/archive1&oldid=1138453952"